Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	church_n	rome_n	separation_n	2,835	5	10.7415	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74992	An ansvver to Mr. J.G. his XL. queries, touching the lawfulness, or unlawfulness of holding church-communion, between such who have been baptized after their beleeving, and others who have not otherwise been baptized, then in their infancie. As likewise touching infant, and after baptism. In which answer, the undueness of such mixt communion is declared, the unlawfulness of infant-baptism, and the necessity of after baptism is asserted. By W.A.	Allen, William, d. 1686.	1653 (1653)	Wing A1054A; Thomason E713_17; ESTC R207237	74,298	97

Such whose ground on which they stand is truth though they ought with all sweetness love and meekness to invite and perswade others to come over to them yet may by no means depart thence or remove their standing no though it were to gain others to them 1 Cor. 9.21 To them that are without Law as without Law being not without Law to God but under the Law to Christ that I might gain them that are without Law Ier. 15.19 Let them return to thee but return not thou unto them Phil. 3.15 16. If in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shal reveal even this unto you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us minde the same thing 6. Though endless Genealogies and striving ●bout the Law and the eating of meats and hearbs are but such things and the truth concerning them but of that nature as that for the sake thereof peace must not be broken Tit. 3.9 1 Tim. 1.4 Rom. 14. yet first such points or questions as concern the fulfilling of any righteousness of which those that concern the essentials of Baptism are Mat. 3.15 are such as of which the Kingdom of God does consist and in the defence of which men serve Iesus Christ and are accepted with God and ought to be approved of men Rō 14.17 18. Secondly not onely Gospel Doctrines about matters of faith but also matters of Gospel order such as the Apostle cals Ordinances appointmen●s or traditions 1 Cor. 11.2 even these are truths to be contended for and not to be let go for peace sake And the Apostle thought this a sufficient answer to such as should contend against these viz. that they had no such custome neither the Churches of God ver 16. with ver 2 3 4 5. c. And if the Churches of God then had no such custom nei●her as to sprinkle or Baptise little children or to admit members to Church-communion without Baptism does not the Apostles saying here though produced upon another occasion evince their contention sinful and unreasonable likewise that shal plead for and practise such things as these contrary to the custom of the first Churches which in all laudable things were patterns to al succeeding Churches The Apostle having in 2 Thes 2. given notice of the Mystery of iniquity it● b●gining then to work ver 7. and the coming of the man of sin with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness ver 10. which we know in the Papal Apostacy hath fallen out as wel in matters of Gospel order as in points of faith he to prevent a defection in both exhorts them ver 15. to stand fast and to hold the Traditions which they had been taught yea and in chap. 3. v. 6. counts that a disorderly walking which was not after the Tradition which they had received from the Apostles And if it were the wisdom and duty of the Churches then to stand fast and to hold fast the Traditions which they had received from the Apostles as wel touching matters of Gospel Order as otherwise to prevent their falling into Anti-christian pollutions then doubtless the way for men now to recover themselves and others from under those pollutions is by returning back to these Apostolical traditions and standing fast in them which doubtless is their duty what disturbance soever may follow thereupon ERRATA PAge 9. l. 15. r. those particular cases p. 25. l. 21. r. neither p. 44. l. 13 r. a p. 49. l. 25. r. supposing p. 52. l. 1 r. formally ib. l. 4. r. is p. 55. l. 16. r. such as have p. 55 l. 24. r. the time of his Baptism p. 57. l. 25. r. and p. 58. l. 24. r. of 59. l. 4. r. describe p. 59. l. 32. r. those p. 60. l. 6 r. words p. 61. l. 16. r. line p. 61. l. 26. r. of p. 61. l. 28. r. when p. 63. l. 3. r. 2 p. 64. l. 14. r. unreasonable p. 66. l. 1. r. much ib. l. 2. r. bapti ib. l. 14. r. meet p. 69. l. 26. r. about p. 72. l. 12. r. charging p. 72. l. 19. r. those p. 72. l. 19. r. practiseth An Answer to Mr. I. G. his XL. Queries touching Church-Communion between such as have been Baptised after they have Beleeved and others who have not otherwise been Baptised then in their Jnfancie As likewise touching Infant and after Baptism THe thoughts of the Worthy Author of the Book Intituled Philadelphia touching the subject matter of that Book being propounded Queri●-wise there is I suppose li●tle Question to be made but that it was with an expectation on his part to receive a return from the hand of some friend or other in order to a further Discovery of Truth in that particular Case of Conscience about which the Queries are imployed And therefore rather then ●he desire of this worthy friend should in this behalf be kept too long fasting I have resolved having first waited a while for some more able hand to have undertaken it through the assistance of God to offer my mite towards this service to which I adress my self as follows Querie I. Whether is there any Precept or example in the Gospel of any Baptized Person his disclaiming of Communion in Church-fellowship with those whom he Judges true Beleevers upon account onely of their not having been Baptized Respondant As for matter of Example for such a practise there is I suppose none in Scripture no more then there is of disclaiming communion with the Church of Rome as now it is or with the the Parochial Churches in England or elsewhere and yet it wil not follow that the one is any more unlawful then the other For Scripture examples are matters of Fact and therefore there having been no such corrupt practise crept into the world till after all the books of the holy Scriptures were finished as is the constituting of Churches without Baptism or upon Infant sprinkling in stead of Baptism which in true construction is not onely no Baptism at all but even worse then none as much as to commit an evil action is worse then to omit a good one there being I say no such corruption as this then on foot no more then there was the now Romish the National or Parochial Church-constitution then in being there could be no occasion for any truely Baptized person to disclaim communion either with the one or with the other and consequently no such matter of Fact to be Recorded of which to make an example But then it no more follows that it is unlawful to refuse communion with the one Church then it is with the other if there be no more ground in Scripture to constitute Churches without Baptism then there is for the Romish National and Parochial constitution The Querist then having himself disclaimed communion with the Church of Rome and the Parochiall Churches in England though he have no example in scripture so to do and yet hath done it because there is no example

were occasioned by Christ Jesus himselfe in bringing his Gospel into the world Luke 12.50 51. and by the Apostles preaching of it 1 Thes 2.2 that therefore the doctrine of that Gospel ought justly to be numbred with the aforesaid vaine questions Nor 2. can I be of opinion with the Querist that the said question rightly understood in the nature and tendency of it leads but to very little that is considerable or of consequence for a Christian to know at least so little as to make it unprofitable and vaine because the knowledge of the Ordinance it selfe and of its nature use and tendency depends upon the knowledge of the appropriate subject as one of the essentialls of it and I cannot judge the knowledge and understanding the counsell of God in that Ordinance a matter of so little moment as to render the question about it the enquiring after it a vain thing Nor doe I understand how the knowledge that comes by the ventilation of it might arrive at the understandings of men in a more peaceable and lesse troublesome way then by pleadings arguings and debatings unlesse every man would of himselfe fall in with the truth wh●ch if they would there would then be no need to contend earn●stly for the faith once given to the Saints as now there is Nor yet 3. can I jump with that conjecture that those who are confident they have found the treasure of truth viz. the appropriate subject of Baptisme especially if upon that discovery they have in conscience to God acted according to their light are rather impoverished then spiritually inriched by it because I suppose that which makes the Querist thus to judge is but his mistaking one thing for another viz. their former tamenesse and silent submission to the judgement of their guides for their sweetnesse meeknesse humility love patience and sobernesse of minde and likewise their present activity and zeale for the truth and the propagation of it and the drawing of others into the same participation and their impugning that by which they have found themselves deceived for rashnesse pride frowardnesse conceitednesse and the like For otherwise except some as in the best Churches of old by whom offences will come I trust in their owne cause and in the tenor of their lives he may discerne the same humility meeknesse sweetnesse love patience sobernesse of minde mortification to the world heavenlinesse of disposition endeavours of doing good which was found in them before not to boast of what additions God hath thereupon made to their spirituall store unlesse his judgement concerning these should be prejudiced by some alteration in his affection to the persons themselves and then it is an easie matter indeed to be so taken up with that onely which is troublesome as to neglect and overlooke that which would be more lovely in his eye if minded XV. Querie answered This Querie runs upon a like mistake with the tenth Querie as supplying that departure he speakes of to proceed onely from a conceit that the Church departed from does not in all things walk according to Gospel-rule whereas the separation proceeds not from the manner of their walking supposing them to be a Church but from the apprehension that such and such persons though Believers are no right constituted Church according to Gospell-rule and therefore cannot by walking with them owne them for such without approving in act what is disallowed in judgement This Querie might be retorted upon the Querist for his excommunicating the Church of England from his society but I shall now intend brevity XVI Querie answered To this Querie I shall say That the Commission of Christ to baptise upon their believing all that by teaching were brought to believe and the series of examples in Scripture answering this Commission and other Scriptures importing all of the Church to be incorporated by Baptisme as in our answer to the first and third Queries is more particularly declared This is sufficient ground for us to conclude that the converts at Antioch in Pisidia and Iconium Acts 13.43 and 14.1 were baptized by Paul and Barnabas who converted them before such time they departed and left them unlesse you will suppose Paul and Barnabas to neglect their duties towards those converts which if it could be proved they did yet would be no ground for Believers now to neglect theirs But why should the Querist presume any more of Paul and Barnabas their holding Church-communion with these converts then of their being baptised the one being no more mentioned then the other or why should he suppose that they had more opportunity to put them into Church-order and to joyn in communion thereupon then to baptise them XVII Querie answered This Querie being much of the same import with the tenth and fifteenth Queries the same Answer will serve For the Querist both in this and severall other Queries mis-represents and mistakes the case in question for the question is not whether a Member of a Christian Church may withdraw his communion because of some defect or errour in the Church which yet is the thing queried and I have elsewhere answered that he may not but the question if rightly stated would be whether a company of Believers though unbaptised either are or may become whilst such a true visible Church according to Gospel-order or whether a man who upon satisfactory grounds doth verily deem them not so to be may yet hold communion with them as if they were such untill he hath with long suffering endeavoured to convince them that they are no Church indeed according to Scripture-account For otherwise the Querist does but beg the question and then taking it as granted him which is utterly denyed proceeds to render a separation unreasonable upon account of this or that failing in the Church as indeed well he might if that were true which he supposes touching the constitutive being of the Church And therefore the businesse may be brought into a narrower compasse then so many queries extend to as are imployed hereabout For let the Querist prove us from the Word of God which is that which onely ought to sway us in this matter either 1. That a company of Believers without Baptisme may become truly and according to Gospel-order a Church of Christ visibly constituted or else 2. That a man who knowes or upon Scripture grounds does believe a company of men and women to be no Church according to such order though Believers unlesse they were baptised into Jesus Christ may notwithstanding this his knowledge or perswasion hold communion with them as if they were such a Church untill he hath convinced them that they are not and then these things being proved I suppose the contest will be ended For had the Querist himselfe been satisfied touching the due constitution of the Church of England of which he once professed himselfe a Member I suppose he would not have deemed the errours in it to have been a just ground of his separation from

in Scripture for such Church-constitution as that of Rome and England is he might as well disclaim communion with Churches built upon Infant Baptism too since there is no more example in Scripture of such a Church constitution then there is of the constitution of those Churches with whom he hath disclaimed communion especially considering that there is example in abundance in Scripture of Churches of a better constitution and that is of Saints Baptized after they had Beleeved 2. As to matter of Precept though there be no litteral or sillabical Precept for Baptized persons to disclaim communion in Church-fellowship with unbaptized ones no more then there is for disclaiming communion with the fals Churches before mentioned yet if the Querist will say that there is Precept in Scripture which does virtually require him to disclaim communion with the Church of Rome and the Parochiall Churches in their way then I will say the same concerning Baptized Beleevers their refusing communion with unbaptized If it be demanded what precept doth virtually require such a thing as non-communion of Baptized with unbaptized I Answer 1. For those that plead the Precept of circumcising Infants under the Law as virtually requiring the baptizing of Infants under the Gospel me thinks this should be satisfactory as to them and so to the Querist himself as touching the Case in hand viz. where God requires Circumcision under pain of being excluded communion with the Church saying the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his fore-skin is not circumcised that soul shal be cut off from his people Gen. 17.14 for what less can be meant by that expression shal be cut off from his people then that such an one should be deprived communion with the people of Israel in Church-fellowship If it be said a cuting off by death is thereby intended then I say that is exclusive of Church-communion likewise for the Major includes the Minor and it is more to be cut off by the hand of death from all oppertunity of future communion with the Church then it is for a man to be debarred present communion onely in order to his repentance that he might be regularly capable of communion afterwards But whether such a cuting off be in that place intended or no most certain it is that such a cuting off is enjoyned Exod. 12.48 where it s said speaking of the Passover That no uncircumcised person shal eat thereof And ther●fore if it be good reasoning from circumcision to B●ptism which if it be not let the Pedobaptists bid adieu to their cause of Infant Baptism which is built and bottomed thereupon then it follows undeniably by way of Analogie that as uncircumc●sion by the command of God did deprive persons of communion with the people of God in Church-fellowship then so non-Baptism does debar persons of Church-communion now And now which of the hornes of this dilemma will the Pedobaptists suffer themselves to be gored by Will they say the consequence is not good to argue the exclusion of unbaptized persons from Church-communion from the exclusion of uncircumcised persons from acts of Church-communion while circumcision was in force if so then how can the consequence be good to argue the Baptism of Infants from the circumcision of Infants for the same things have the same consequences and to things alike belongs the like reason and judgement and therefore let them either grant my inference or for ever cease any more to infer from Infants circumcision to Infants Baptism 2. I would argue further thus the same Law which enjoynes the learned Querist and others of his way to deny the priviledge of their Churches to other Beleevers that are not of their Churches but do scruple their way and cannot submit to their order the same Law does enjoyn baptized beleevers not to admit into fellowship with them in Church priviledges such persons though beleevers as do scruple their order and way of being baptized in order to Church communion and will not submit thereto For the Scripture is every whit as express for Baptism to precede the enjoyment of Church priviledges as it is for a voluntary consenting to Church order and government to precede the same enjoyment Nay I am confident that the Arguments and Plea's brought to prove it lawful to admit Beleevers to such communion without Baptism if admited as good would overthrow and level the Order and Discipline of particular Churches For if one single person may be admited to Church-priviledges without Baptism or without submiting to the order and rule of the Church both which are previous to acts of Church-communion and I affirm the case is more clear for Baptism in this behalf in Scripture then it is for that submission and consent I speak of I say if one person may be admitted upon such terms then why not two if two why not ten and so a hundred or a thousand and consequently such Gospel order laid totally aside 3. If these things serve not turn yet those precepts exhortations or doctrines by which men stand enjoyned to observe Gospel Order 1 Cor. 14.40 2 Tim. 1.13 2 Thess 2.15 1 Cor. 11.2 Titus 1.5 Col. 2.5 Rom. 6.17 do virtually prohibit men Baptized communion with unbaptized in Church fellowship as that which is contrary thereunto 1. That this was the order of the Gospel yea and an order enjoyned by Christ viz. that Beleevers should first be Baptized before admited into Church-fellowship will sufficiently appear if duly considered from that Commission of Christ to his Disciples Mat. 28.19 Go ye therefore teach all Nations Baptizing them Where we see that the very next thing they were to do after they had taught men viz. so as to make them willing to obey the Gospel Acts 2.41 was to Baptize them which injunction therefore as some well observe is put by a participle of the present tense Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. i. e. presently upon their being taught as all examples of that nature in the Acts of the Apostles do declare And if this were the very next thing in order to be done after men were instructed to the beleef of the Gospel then an admiting them into Church fellowship without this could not be without a deviation and turning from the rule of Christ in this behalf which transgression to suppose the Disciples of Christ admiting or the Disciples admited to be guilty of is a peece of uncharitableness more then I am willing to communicate in 2. The Apostles according to the Commandement of Christ begining first at Ierusalem to put this Commission of his into execution Luke 24.47 did act accordingly And doubtless their acting upon this Commission ought to be taken by us as an interpretation of this Commission and their actions relating hereto to be in pursuance of and correspondent to this Commission unless we will suppose them to stumble at the threshold and to begin to depart from it assoon as they began to act upon it which would be too great an